ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2009
Diagnostic concordance in reporting breast needle core biopsies using the B classification-A panel in Italy.
Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lesions with unclear malignant potential (B3) after minimally invasive breast biopsy: evaluation of vacuum biopsies performed in Switzerland and recommended further management.Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) · 2016Article
- Combined contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance and diffusion-weighted imaging reading adapted to the "Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System" for multiparametric 3-T imaging of breast lesions.European radiology · 2013Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The widespread implementation of mammography screening has resulted in an increased frequency of needle core biopsies (NCB). The aim of this study was that of evaluating the diagnostic reproducibility on breast NCB, according to the B-classification, among several pathologists from different Italian regions. Fifty single slides of NCBs performed for non palpable breast lesions were selected to evaluate the diagnostic reproducibility, according to the B classification, among 31 pathologists from different Italian areas, involved in the pathologic diagnosis of screen-detected breast lesions. According to the study majority diagnosis (MD), 21 cases were classified as B2 (benign lesion), 23 B3 (lesion of uncertain malignant potential) and 6 B5 (malignant lesion). Overall, individual kappa coefficients in comparison to MD were good (mean 0.61, range 0.31-0.88). The level of inter-observer agreement, however, appeared lower in differentiating the two intermediate categories B2 and B3, thus potentially leading to over-treatment (false-positives: 26%) or under-treatment (false-negatives: 17%) of individual patients. Specific sub-types of B3 need an improvement of the diagnostic definition. A multidisciplinary approach and consultation with expert colleagues are recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.